Yesterday we ended with the following questions:
- In what sense do Liberal Democrats use the word populism?
- What was the historical meaning of the word populism?
So what do liberals mean by “populism”. We can’t ask them all, but perhaps I won’t be far off the mark if I offer the following definition based on their speeches and articles: Populism is a political practice consisting of a politician giving in to the will of the majority of the moment, even though he knows that this will later prove to be a very bad solution. A responsible politician, on the other hand, will push for a solution that is good for the country, the nation, the majority of the population, the American banks, the Open Society Foundations… in short, a responsible politician will push for a solution that is good for everyone.
For example, most want to stop going to work and have welfare for all paid for out of state reserves. So the populist advocates this, the responsible politician rejects it. But wait a minute! The majority wants no such thing. So where is the conflict between populism and responsibility?
The majority, for example, wants us to stop escalating the war and, in particular, wants us to avoid nuclear conflict at all costs. That is what the populists are advocating. But a responsible politician knows that the destruction of the country and the death of the majority of the population is a lesser evil than if Putin escapes punishment by committing a crime. Or at least make it clear that we have done everything. A situation where Putin may have escaped punishment, but millions of Czechs are dead is more bearable for a responsible politician than knowing we didn’t go far enough.
The majority only want climate action to be such that it does not lead to a noticeable reduction in living standards. And a populist would indeed do so. But a responsible politician knows that if the bottom 80% don’t starve and die of hypothermia, the planet will burn. A responsible politician also knows that the current destruction of factories will somehow magically cause living standards to rise in the future.
The majority calls for a decisive halt to migration, especially Muslim migration. And the populist agrees. But a responsible politician knows that Islam is a religion of peace and that we desperately need more Islam. That is why he will support migration.
In all those cases (and many others), the responsible politician knows that one day the people will thank him. He will find that living among aggressive Muslim communities is great. He will find that starving for the planet is uplifting. He will find that mourning the children killed at the front is heroic. They will be glad that the populists did not win.
As can be seen, it is all based on the belief that the liberal oligarchy knows the right solutions while the majority of the population is wrong. It’s so obvious that discussion would be a waste of time. In other words, whoever currently holds financial and political power is also thereby gaining access to knowledge that is denied to the rest of the people. Linked to this is the belief that professional politicians, professional intellectuals and managers of multinational groups tend to act altruistically, while poorer people are fiercely protective of their own selfish interests. If these assumptions are not met, the term “populism” is utterly meaningless and should be avoided by rational people.
If you want Hampl’s definition, it goes like this: A populist is any opponent of mine, as long as he is supported by the majority, and I am in the minority.
But if you’re wondering about the original meaning of the word populism, the word referred to the American small farmer movement. A populist was one who defended the interests of small farmers. The Populist Party was founded in 1892 and disbanded in 1909.